Napier Parking Ltd/BW Legal defence stage

Coupon-mad

Might be easier to Google for it.

Quote the 2022 withdrawn DLUHC Code: the actual definition of parking period.

KAJ7020

This?

2.19 parked/parking

an instance of a vehicle being caused by the driver to remain stationary other than in the course of driving (excluding instances where the driver has stopped to enable passengers leave or enter the vehicle)

A vehicle may be deemed to be parked whether or not the driver has left the vehicle or turned off the ignition

And this?

2.24 parking period

the length of time that a vehicle has been parked, i.e. left stationary otherwise than in the course of driving, after any relevant consideration period has expired (excluding instances where the driver has stopped to enable passengers to leave or enter the vehicle)

This is not the period between a vehicle being recorded as entering and departing controlled land.

Coupon-mad

Yes indeed, this assists you: "(excluding instances where the driver has stopped to enable passengers to leave or enter the vehicle)".

Whilst the DLUHC Code was challenged and withdrawn by the Tories, this Government is set to reintroduce it by the Autumn (well before your case reaches a hearing) and that definition isn't changing.

KAJ7020

Ah yes that's brilliant. I was aware of this withdrawn Code, just hadn't gone through it properly.

So going back to my 3rd paragraph that I've got drafted up, have you been indicating to me that I should be using some wording from this Code in the paragraph somewhere?

KAJ7020

So I have re-done paragraph 3, if somebody wouldn't mind checking it over please?

3. The Claimant's claim is based on an alleged breach of contract. However, the Claimant's own tracking data shows the vehicle was present on the land for a total duration of just X minutes and Y seconds. The driver entered the site with an initial intention to park, but immediately upon entry, received an urgent message from the passenger requesting to be driven home. The vehicle was briefly stopped strictly for the purpose of picking up and loading a passenger, which does not legally constitute 'parking'. The driver never turned off the engine, never parked in a bay, and never left the vehicle. The Defendant notes that Section 2.24 of the Government's withdrawn 2022 DLUHC Private Parking Code of Practice explicitly defines a 'parking period' as time elapsed 'after any relevant consideration period has expired (excluding instances where the driver has stopped to enable passengers to leave or enter the vehicle)' and clarifies that this is 'not the period between a vehicle being recorded as entering and departing controlled land.' A timeframe of X minutes and Y seconds for an immediate turnaround and passenger pick-up falls squarely within this mandatory consideration period. Therefore, no parking contract was ever formed, and no contract was breached.

KAJ7020

Or would this be a better paragraph as it more concise?:

The claim is denied. The Claimant’s ANPR data shows a stay of just X minutes and Y seconds. The vehicle stopped briefly only to load a passenger after a change of plans. The driver never parked in a bay, turned off the engine, or left the vehicle. Passenger loading is not 'parking'. The Claimant is bound by the current Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice, which mandates a minimum consideration period upon entry. Furthermore, Section 2.24 of the government's withdrawn 2022 DLUHC Code explicitly states a 'parking period' excludes time spent loading passengers and is 'not the period between a vehicle being recorded as entering and departing controlled land.' A 5-minute stay falls entirely within these mandatory standards. No contract was formed, so there can be no contract to breach.

Coupon-mad

I prefer the longer version!

KAJ7020

Ok, I will go with the longer version. Really appreciate your valuable input/knowledge and everything you've put together on here to help people like me in these situations. Thank you so much.

One last question before I finalise the defence for submitting, in regards to paragraph 2, do I now need to admit to being the driver (as I was), as obviously up to this point the driver has not been identified? Or do I still fight this without naming the driver?

KAJ7020

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82032439#Comment_82032439

Could anybody confirm about what I asked about paragraph 2 of my defence please?

Gr1pr

my thoughts are always admit it , IF the NTK PCN letter complied with POFA2012 , or to get it out of the way so that your WS can talk about the events in detail as the only witness present, so as the driver !

the defence and WS can concentrate more on the events if its mentioned from the very start, rather than arguing about keeper liability